Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31857333›Full record

Observational studyBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2019

Working 9 to 5, not the way to make an academic living: observational analysis of manuscript and peer review submissions over time.

Adrian Barnett, Inger Mewburn, Sara Schroter

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Conquest of COVID-19. Publish it to death?British journal of haematology · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Adrian BarnettSchool of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia a.barnett@qut.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-6339-0374
Inger MewburnAustralian National University, ANU College of Asia and the Pacific, Canberra, Australia.
Sara SchroterBMJ, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine whether researchers are submitting manuscripts and peer reviews to BMJ journals out of hours and whether this has changed over time.

designObservational study of research manuscripts and peer reviews submitted between 2012 and 2019 for which an author's address could be geocoded.

settingOnline BMJ submission systems for two large general medical journals.

main outcome measuresManuscript and peer review submissions on weekends, on national holidays, and by hour of day (to determine early mornings and late nights). Logistic regression was used to estimate the probability of manuscript and peer review submissions on weekends or holidays.

resultsThe analyses included more than 49 000 manuscript submissions and 76 000 peer reviews. Little change over time was seen in the average probability of manuscript or peer review submissions occurring on weekends or holidays. The levels of out of hours work were high, with average probabilities of 0.14 to 0.18 for work on the weekends and 0.08 to 0.13 for work on holidays compared with days in the same week. Clear and consistent differences were seen between countries. Chinese researchers most often worked at weekends and at midnight, whereas researchers in Scandinavian countries were among the most likely to submit during the week and the middle of the day.

conclusionThe differences between countries that are persistent over time show that a "culture of overwork" is a literal thing, not just a figure of speech.

Indexed as

Peer Review, ResearchPersonnel Staffing and SchedulingPublishingHumansLogistic Models

Identifiers

PMID31857333
PMCPMC7222960

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.